[Newsbot]

Title: DND plans for vehicle purchases back on
Category: Military
Posted By: Hyack
Date: 2010-03-15 16:20:06
Canadian

[Canadian_Mind]

just from personal experiance, the redundancy of having to go through training on 4 different armoured platforms is a total waste of money and time, especially when I never end up using something I've been trained on.

If the army went out and dropped 7.5 billion dollars on 1 500 armoured vehicles based on the same chassie, but of different variants, alot of money would be saved in the long run.

All the various LAV I (Husky), LAV II (Bison), LAV 25 (Coyote), and LAV III platforms could be consolidated under a single program for much cheaper in the long run than constantly buying new vehicles of different types... And I bet all or most of the uses for the M113 aswell.

Now, there are various reasons for wanting different platforms for specialization, recce being one of em. But at only 18 000 members in the army, most of which aren't even combat arms, we really aren't all that big to be looking at unit specialization verses logistical fees.



Edit - And just to clarify, where there are unique needs, there is a need for unique vehicles. But where you have 200 of one type of 8 wheeled vehicle, 200 of another 8 wheeled vehicle, and 650 of a 3rd type, yet just one of those types could fill the role of all three, that's where I have an issue with the current system.

[bootlegga]

The reason our LAV fleet is a mixed bag CM is because they've been bought piecemeal since the 1970s. First they built the Cougars, Huskies, and Grizzlies, then added Bisons later on. Finally, Coyotes were bought in the 90s.

I well aware that many LAVs have been destroyed/badly damaged in Afghanistan, but to me, the priority should on new ships, not LAVs, especially given that we are leaving Afghanistan soon. Our navy is sailing 40 year old supply ships and destroyers, while many of our LAVs (Coyotes) are either a decade or so old, or were rebuilt within the last decade (Bisons).

[PolyPEI]

I would have to agree with bootlegga in that for me, ships are a priority. In a new age of combat, long-distance combat is more and more important [Even though with Canada, we are performing more a peacekeeper role. And that requires boots on the ground]. I guess the question we need to answer is where do our priorities lie: (a) peacekeeping or (b)combat readiness and national defence?

Also: "The air force will scale back on non-operational training, cut some of its flying time as well as scale back non-essential repairs."

I'd really like to know what the air force considers a 'non-essential repair', especially considering how high and fast most aircraft fly...

[PublicAnimalNo9]

PolyPEI PolyPEI:

Also: "The air force will scale back on non-operational training, cut some of its flying time as well as scale back non-essential repairs."

I'd really like to know what the air force considers a 'non-essential repair', especially considering how high and fast most aircraft fly...

Uhhh yeah. I would'a figured everything on a combat aircraft, or any aircraft for that matter, would be considered an essential component. Maybe they mean painting?